The
petitioners were appointed as Field Workers in the Filaria Department of the
State Government between 1981 and 1985. In the first instance, they had fixed
W.P. No.250/92 and the High Court directed the Government to consider their
representation and dispose it of by judgment dated January 18, 1993. When they came to this Court, this Court directed the
Government to consider their cases in the Right of the Singh [(1932) 4 SCC
118]. Subsequently, since the Government had not taken any steps, the
petitioners fixed another writ petition. In the meanwhile, the Public Service
Commission [PSC] had selected the candidates who were not being appointed.
Therefore, the selectees approached the High Court and filed the writ petition.
The petitioners also filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking for regularisation.
The High Court in the impugned order dated June 24, 1996 in O.P. No. 17422/93 dismissed the
batch of writ petitions filed by the petitioners allowed one writ petitions
filed by the selectees and directed the Government to appoint the candidates
selected through the PSC. It also directed the Government to send the
requisition to the PSC to fill up the posts of 30 vacancies from the list of
the selected candidates prepared by the PSC. Thus this special leave petition.

It is
bought to be contended by Mr. M.M. Paikedav, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners that in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Piara
Singh's case and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been continuing
for more than 14 years, they are required to be regularised. We find no force
in the contention. Admittedly, the posts are to be filled up through selection
by PSC recruitment norms. Necessarily, therefore, the requisition was sent for
selection through the PSC and candidates came to be selected. Under those
circumstances, the candidates, who were found eligible and selected and
recommended for appointment by the PSC, were required to be appointed. The
Court rightly had exercised the power in declining to regularise the services
of the petitioners.

The
learned counsel sought to rely upon an order of the Government where the
Government had decided to regularise the services of the employees. Obviously,
since the decision runs into the teeth of statutory requirement under Article
320 of the Constitution the Government cannot take any decision contrary to the
Constitution to regularise the services of the candidates de hors the
recruitment rules and the statutory process for selection through the PSC. The
High Court, therefore, has rightly given direction to the Government to notify
30 vacancies and odd or whatever may be the vacancies existing to fill up from
amongst the candidates selected by the PSC.

It is
then contended that the petitioners have turned over-aged and, therefore,
necessary direction may be given to regularise their service by filling up the
unfilled posts. Even that relief also cannot be granted. If the petitioners
have turned over-aged on the date of recruitment, it would be for the
appropriate Government to relax the age requirement and the petitioners have to
stand in the queue and get selection through the PSC. Thus that they get in
only the right to appointment to the post.